I disagree. If anything the media paints Apple as a bully and Samsung gets off scott free.
"the media"?
I read much of the same media you do and I don't see that at all; just partisan sites that are taking sides. It's ignored for the most part in mainstream media. 500 million iPhones sold, and how many users follow tech sites? 1 in 10? 1 in 20?
Disagree all you want, but there just isn't a problem with Apple going after Samsung in court for infringement, and the court of public opinion doesn't care.
Are current Samsung phones still ripping off slide to unlock or the rubber banding patent? What's the end result? That Samsung pays Apple for what they infringed and then life goes on? I don't think anything in this trial is going to stop Samsung from being a fast follower.
Repeating the same point many times in the same thread doesn't make it any less nihilistic.
I read much of the same media you do and I don't see that at all; just partisan sites that are taking sides. It's ignored for the most part in mainstream media. 500 million iPhones sold, and how many users follow tech sites? 1 in 10? 1 in 20?
Disagree all you want, but there just isn't a problem with Apple going after Samsung in court for infringement, and the court of public opinion doesn't care.
Apple can do whatever it wants, I'm just not convinced its time well spent and don't think it will matter in the long run. Apple may win this battle but the war is far from over.
How exactly does Apple win? So Samsung pays a fine. It's a drop in the bucket. And doesn't mean anything. Meanwhile the media meme/public mindshare is that Apple is spending all their time on silly lawsuits over things that should never have been granted a patent in the first place. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing for Apple to win at this point and and all these confidential memos/emails being leaked do more harm than good.
I haven't read the whole thread, but I hope you get chewed out thoroughly for this shallow comment. As jungmark says, it's about a very practical principle: steal our hard work, get sued and shamed before the world. And yes, it does cause Apple to be more despised, and more misunderstood by those who like yourself should know better. Sometimes I wonder about your lack of consistency.
Wait, are we talking about the older Samsung implementations that used an iOS style left-to-right slider, or the current implementation of slide-to-unlock as found in, say, the Galaxy Nexus? Since ICS, Android's slide-to-unlock has allowed the user to swipe along any path from the center of a circle to any point on the circle; neither the endpoint nor the path are "predefined."
Older Samsung models. Newer methods used by Samsung likely don't infringe.
Repeating the same point many times in the same thread doesn't make it any less nihilistic.
fine, let Apple waste their time over principle. Let Samsung be punished with a fine that's a drop in the bucket for them so DED can come herd and crow about how Apple won. Except he'll never be able to tell us what, exactly, Apple won.
I haven't read the whole thread, but I hope you get chewed out thoroughly for this shallow comment. As jungmark says, it's about a very practical principle: steal our hard work, get sued and shamed before the world. And yes, it does cause Apple to be more despised, and more misunderstood by those who like yourself should know better. Sometimes I wonder about your lack of consistency.
Samsung is being shamed before the world? You serious? I think released trial documents about Apple sales execs fretting over growth of Android handsets is more embarrassing than whatever shame might befall Samsung should Apple win this trial. I still question whether it was worth it, especially with all the confidential memos, emails, designs that came out as result of it. That Steve Jobs top 100 email from 2010 has f*ck all to do with this trial yet that's what every tech site was talking about. Of course Samsung knows this and will do whatever they can, whatever is allowed to change the subject and make the trial not about patent infringement but about Apple fretting over the competition and trying to stop it via the courts. I know I'll get murdered for saying this but basically I think Apple is cutting off its nose to spite its face.
I haven't read the whole thread, but I hope you get chewed out thoroughly for this shallow comment. As jungmark says, it's about a very practical principle: steal our hard work, get sued and shamed before the world. And yes, it does cause Apple to be more despised, and more misunderstood by those who like yourself should know better. Sometimes I wonder about your lack of consistency.
I agree. Rogifan sometimes makes some really astute comments; in fact, I read one today. But he seems to have a blind spot on the very basic principles underlying this trial. I don't understand why.
Honestly, I think the main thing Apple is after is making close copies of Apple's products a painful proposition. Samsung has already opened another non-android avenue of Tizen, which I doubt they would have pursued seriously if they had been able to keep using Android painlessly.
In this viewpoint, it doesn't matter how much time effort and money Apple has to put into the lawsuit, as long as it's equally or more painful for Samsung. Which I think it will be.
All interesting points and probably valid. I was simply pointing out to those that seem to gleefully anticipate an Apple comeuppance, that suing Apple for infringing on a patent that Google gives away would be more than normally difficult.
I agree. Rogifan sometimes makes some really astute comments; in fact, I read one today. But he seems to have a blind spot on the very basic principles underlying this trial. I don't understand why.
Now that you explain it that way it makes total sense. I still think the trouble Apple runs into (at least in the PR or media meme sense) is people will say slide to unlock is something completely obvious that should never have been granted a patent. So even if the jury decided Samsung violated that patent the public at large will say it was ridiculous that it ever received a patent in the first place and ridiculous that Apple sued over it. I'm not saying I agree, but that's what will happen IMO.
Well, then, stop agreeing with this dumb view and start arguing for the smart view, like RadartheKat does, or others who are saying the opposite of what you are saying.
Against, I'm still reading through the thread, so I don't know if others are trying to change your mind.
Well, then, stop agreeing with this dumb view and start arguing for the smart view, like RadartheKat does, or others who are saying the opposite of what you are saying.
Against, I'm still reading through the thread, so I don't know if others are trying to change your mind.
my mind is that Apple cut off its nose to spite its face and no one is going to change that.
Great work, Daniel. Consider a response to Mueller's item today; he mentions this article: "... all that those docs show is the perfectly lawful process of benchmarking: Samsung was looking at the way the iPhone did it (you don't need a license from Apple to look at its products), compared them to its own, conducted an analysis of what could enhance customer satisfaction, and then improved its products."
Samsung is being shamed before the world? You serious? I think released trial documents about Apple sales execs fretting over growth of Android handsets is more embarrassing than whatever shame might befall Samsung should Apple win this trial. I still question whether it was worth it, especially with all the confidential memos, emails, designs that came out as result of it. That Steve Jobs top 100 email from 2010 has f*ck all to do with this trial yet that's what every tech site was talking about. Of course Samsung knows this and will do whatever they can, whatever is allowed to change the subject and make the trial not about patent infringement but about Apple fretting over the competition and trying to stop it via the courts. I know I'll get murdered for saying this but basically I think Apple is cutting off its nose to spite its face.
Shamed before the tech world, I should say, an engineering level of which I'm sure Samsung's engineers are interested in feeling on a par with.
Apple wins by not being the victim of theft by this or any other company that cares for its professional reputation. Why they're going for a second round is an interesting question. I don't have a worthwhile opinion, but I'm sure they did a complete PR cost-benefit calculus.
Great work, Daniel. Consider a response to Mueller's item today; he mentions this article: "... all that those docs show is the perfectly lawful process of benchmarking: Samsung was looking at the way the iPhone did it (you don't need a license from Apple to look at its products), compared them to its own, conducted an analysis of what could enhance customer satisfaction, and then improved its products."
Sounds like Mueller's arguing with only half the facts. Those documents show the progression of Samsung's thinking that directly led to thrm infringing Apple's patent. They show intent. A separate fact, the fact that Apple's patented method for unlocking a phone, is present in the disputed handsets, is the evidence Samsung infringed Apple's patent. A lie by omission is still a lie. I have to wonder about all the sources, seen and unseen, of Mueller's income these days.
I want to know what you apple people think about this entire patent trial. Do you think Samsung is wrong to steal something patented, but it ok for Apple to steal something that's not? Should you be able to patent these type of things?
And I want to know how much Samsung pays you to shill for them.
Shamed before the tech world, I should say, an engineering level of which I'm sure Samsung's engineers are interested in feeling on a par with.
Apple wins by not being the victim of theft by this or any other company that cares for its professional reputation. Why they're going for a second round is an interesting question. I don't have a worthwhile opinion, but I'm sure they did a complete PR cost-benefit calculus.
There will be a third round, and a fourth. Apple would bring all of the patents it feels Samsung infringed in one trial, but the courts will not allow that so they must bring as many as the court will allow in each lawsuit. The courts don't want a long, drawn out trial that consumes taxpayer dollars and takes jury members away from their lives for an extended period, so Apple must litigate multiple times, with each action covering a new set of infringed patents.
Great work, Daniel. Consider a response to Mueller's item today; he mentions this article: "... all that those docs show is the perfectly lawful process of benchmarking: Samsung was looking at the way the iPhone did it (you don't need a license from Apple to look at its products), compared them to its own, conducted an analysis of what could enhance customer satisfaction, and then improved its products."
This. The real issue is not benchmarking, but that after all the benchmarking two things happened:
- Samsung discovered Apple's method was actually superior.
- Samsung used Apple's method instead of one of their own methods.
If Samsung tested five ways of doing unlock, and used the one that was closest to Apple in terms of usability, then that would be considered benchmarking. Choosing Apple's method after benchmarking s copying.
my mind is that Apple cut off its nose to spite its face and no one is going to change that.
Ok, fine. Truth to tell, I had you filed under a different hormonal paradigm, i.e., left-brain male geek limited-picture lockdown. Now I see you're under corpus callosum wave-action thinking. Explains what is perceived as inconsistency, but then "consistency is the hob-goblin of . . . small minds?" I forget the rest, I think it was Emerson.
Just to add, Emerson might be on your side. Me, not so much, because the PR problem you speak of is solvable, just as the thieving problem is solvable.
Comments
I disagree. If anything the media paints Apple as a bully and Samsung gets off scott free.
"the media"?
I read much of the same media you do and I don't see that at all; just partisan sites that are taking sides. It's ignored for the most part in mainstream media. 500 million iPhones sold, and how many users follow tech sites? 1 in 10? 1 in 20?
Disagree all you want, but there just isn't a problem with Apple going after Samsung in court for infringement, and the court of public opinion doesn't care.
Repeating the same point many times in the same thread doesn't make it any less nihilistic.
I haven't read the whole thread, but I hope you get chewed out thoroughly for this shallow comment. As jungmark says, it's about a very practical principle: steal our hard work, get sued and shamed before the world. And yes, it does cause Apple to be more despised, and more misunderstood by those who like yourself should know better. Sometimes I wonder about your lack of consistency.
Older Samsung models. Newer methods used by Samsung likely don't infringe.
I agree. Rogifan sometimes makes some really astute comments; in fact, I read one today. But he seems to have a blind spot on the very basic principles underlying this trial. I don't understand why.
In this viewpoint, it doesn't matter how much time effort and money Apple has to put into the lawsuit, as long as it's equally or more painful for Samsung. Which I think it will be.
Well, then, stop agreeing with this dumb view and start arguing for the smart view, like RadartheKat does, or others who are saying the opposite of what you are saying.
Against, I'm still reading through the thread, so I don't know if others are trying to change your mind.
Great work, Daniel. Consider a response to Mueller's item today; he mentions this article: "... all that those docs show is the perfectly lawful process of benchmarking: Samsung was looking at the way the iPhone did it (you don't need a license from Apple to look at its products), compared them to its own, conducted an analysis of what could enhance customer satisfaction, and then improved its products."
Shamed before the tech world, I should say, an engineering level of which I'm sure Samsung's engineers are interested in feeling on a par with.
Apple wins by not being the victim of theft by this or any other company that cares for its professional reputation. Why they're going for a second round is an interesting question. I don't have a worthwhile opinion, but I'm sure they did a complete PR cost-benefit calculus.
Sounds like Mueller's arguing with only half the facts. Those documents show the progression of Samsung's thinking that directly led to thrm infringing Apple's patent. They show intent. A separate fact, the fact that Apple's patented method for unlocking a phone, is present in the disputed handsets, is the evidence Samsung infringed Apple's patent. A lie by omission is still a lie. I have to wonder about all the sources, seen and unseen, of Mueller's income these days.
I want to know what you apple people think about this entire patent trial. Do you think Samsung is wrong to steal something patented, but it ok for Apple to steal something that's not? Should you be able to patent these type of things?
And I want to know how much Samsung pays you to shill for them.
There will be a third round, and a fourth. Apple would bring all of the patents it feels Samsung infringed in one trial, but the courts will not allow that so they must bring as many as the court will allow in each lawsuit. The courts don't want a long, drawn out trial that consumes taxpayer dollars and takes jury members away from their lives for an extended period, so Apple must litigate multiple times, with each action covering a new set of infringed patents.
- Samsung discovered Apple's method was actually superior.
- Samsung used Apple's method instead of one of their own methods.
If Samsung tested five ways of doing unlock, and used the one that was closest to Apple in terms of usability, then that would be considered benchmarking. Choosing Apple's method after benchmarking s copying.
Ok, fine. Truth to tell, I had you filed under a different hormonal paradigm, i.e., left-brain male geek limited-picture lockdown. Now I see you're under corpus callosum wave-action thinking. Explains what is perceived as inconsistency, but then "consistency is the hob-goblin of . . . small minds?" I forget the rest, I think it was Emerson.
Just to add, Emerson might be on your side. Me, not so much, because the PR problem you speak of is solvable, just as the thieving problem is solvable.